kerouac9 said:
What "scheme" do the Falcons run with Michael Vick? The one where he doesn't complete 60% of his passes, gets sacked the second-most times in the NFL, but still wins 2/3 of his games?
Multiple back sets, single reciever formations, pass attempts etc etc.
I know that scheme, it's called "Michael Vick is the single most valuable player in the NFL."
Clearly, the NFL community disagrees, as he isn't holding a MVP trophy. Last time I checked, Peyton Manning had that honor.
Take Manning away from the Colts, and they're--at worst--a 7-9 team. They're probably closer to a 9-7 team, since Jim Sorgi, of all people, completed 58.6% of his passes when he played in relief of Manning last year.
I can't believe the Colts would be a 9-7 or 7-9 team. Not with a defense that was giving up 21 points a game and ranked 29th in total defense.
Even if Sorgi is completing 58% of his passes (big deal?) in a loss to Denver. There is no way he would able to replicate what Manning does in that offense, on a consistant basis, as to carry that team based on offensive production alone like Manning does.
Manning is every bit important to the Colts, as Vick is to the Falcons.
Take Vick away from the Falcons, as we've seen, and they're 1-11 (counting the game last season with your vaunted better defensive scheme and playmaking WRs that Matt Schaub lost)--or worse.
It wasn't a better defensive scheme!? Comparing the 2003 defense to the 2004 defense is like night and day.
Are you seriously trying to negate the importance of that defense which was ranked last in total defense in 03' compared to one that was atleast 'good' in 04'? Improving that side of the ball was one of the reasons for such a turn around in 04'
As to 'playmaking WR's'? I said several posts back that the lack of depth and quality in that group was one of the reasons for ATL's 2003 season. So I have no idea what you are talking about with that comment.
I'm not saying that all the things you mention didn't contribute to the bad season in 2003, but it they don't change the fact that when Vick came back into the lineup for the last four games, they were suddenly competitive, with all the same problems still there.
From my last post:
And it was when Dan Reeves was gone and Vick returned that they put a few together.
I have never denied Vicks importance to the Falcons. Which you will see if you re-read my previous posts.
My issue(s) is saying that Vick was THE reason for the Falcons 2003 season, his value in comparison with other players re: building around one player and other members of the Falcons not getting credit for their contributions to ATL's 2004 season.
And all those same problems were still there in 2002, when the Falcons were the first team ever to beat the Packers at Lambeau in the playoffs.
Thanks to the Falcons defense and special teams forcing 5 turnovers. Unless, of course, you want to somehow credit those contributions to Vick?
But of course the Packers losing Darren Sharper before the game and then Ahman Green and Donald Driver in the 2nd half had no affect on the landscape of that game what so ever...
Even after the team "gave up on the coach and the season is over", Vick rallied that team to 3-1 against good teams over the last quarter of the season.
Good teams? Again, Tampa Bay nor where Jacksonville even .500 teams!? The one good team they beat was Carolina.
Are you really saying that whatever crappy interim coach (Wade Phillips, I think, the one who instituted your "crappy defensive scheme") had more to do with the Falcons finishing 3-1 than Vick's return did? Are you serious?
Happens all the time. Once Jim bates took over in Miami, the Dolphins went and beat the Patriots. Most teams have a high once a head coach leaves, as they want to prove something.
But again, I never discounted Vick's contribution:
And it was when Dan Reeves was gone and Vick returned that they put a few together.
